Thats a rather simple way to explain the parable.

First, its generally understood that the Gospels were originally written in Greek. Theres much debate on whether any were originally written in Aramaic. There is little to no evidence to suggest that Hebrew would have been used, particularly because Aramaic was the common tongue spoken in Judea at that time. Regardless of what language the original gospels were in, it is pretty well accepted that Jesus spoke in Aramaic.

Second, what you have stated is a common explanation of the parable. But it is open to debate. The Greek words used for ‘needle’ do mean exactly that, and two different words for ‘needle’ are used in different gospels. Its possible that the phrase as would have been spoken in Aramaic was a pun or idiom, as ‘eye of the needle’ was not an uncommon saying among Jewish literature. However, the apocryphal Acts of Peter and Andrew clearly refers to a literal camel passing through a literal needle, so it is quite possible that the phrase was an understood idiom from that time that suggests something that is nearly impossible to accomplish.

As for the ‘gate’ explanation, there is little evidence to suggest the existence of such a gate. The Acts of Peter and Andrew discuss a miracle of opening a needle’s eye to the size of a gate so that a camel can pass through, so that might be where that explanation is from.

In any event, most don’t interpret the parable to mean that it is impossible for a rich man to enter heaven, just that it is very difficult. It is a parable after all, a teaching tool. And Jewish written tradition is filled with such hyperbolic phrasings.

My quoting of the parable was simply to contrast the well known teachings of Jesus with those of the pastor who is preaching ‘prosperity.’ I’m not certain why so much is being read into what I wrote.

We’ve got the American Jesus
Bolstering national faith
We’ve got the American Jesus
Overwhelming millions every day

#23 Kino

@#6 great rant and someone please correct me if I’m wrong but as I understand it , it is a federal crime to carry more than 10,000. in cash now , not that I agree with that either just pointing it out

I don’t think there is any restrictions on how much cash you can carry when traveling domestically (as was the case with the $120,000 that was seized). There is a requirement that you declare any cash when you’re carrying more than $10,000 internationally.

please don’t kill the messenger LOL

Also, pro poker players have been known to get their bankrolls stolen by DEA types in airports. I don’t have the article handy, but IIRC one pro was invited to a game in Los Angeles, but he was somewhere else (Vegas maybe?) So he got out his stacks of hundreds, went to the airport, paid cash for a ticket (red flag I guess), and got hijacked by security and the cops. They took his entire bankroll…$50,000 or something like that, and never charged him with anything.

The Ron Paul treasurer guy comes to mind as well.

Special Agent Roberto Bryan Jr. of the New Orleans Division of the DEA said, “No legitimate businessman travels with $120,000 in cash through the airport.”

Meaning: Just because I “say” a legitimate businessman would never travel with $120,000 in cash through the airport, even though carrying cash is 100% LEGAL, they *must* be guilty of something, because I say so and all us Feds would really like to buy some new Hummers and assault rifles, so we’ll just make up this crime of “having too much money on you” and shake people down whenever we can. Straight Cash Homey.

Troll much?

Being a Christian in most of Africa, the Middle East or Asia today is more likely to result in persecution or death than prosperity in this life…

That link is pure win.

http://kurtgreenbaumisapussy.com/

sometimes you actually manage to post something that keeps me from writing a novella just because you said it first and better.

They have no basis of justice because that would prevent them from “doing their jobs”. How else can you account for someone who enforces someone else’s law? You can’t pick and choose. You have to enforce them all. In order to do so, you give up your right to consider what’s right and do what your told.

LEO’s are so focused on doing what they’re told that they consider the Constitution an impediment that needs to be worked around, not supported. Justice has absolutely nothing to do with it.